Senators Request Live TV for Health Care Ruling.

Leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee are asking the Supreme Court to allow live television coverage when it delivers its ruling on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Chairman Patrick Leahy and ranking Republican Charles Grassley said the issues in the case are as important and consequential as any in recent court history.

EDIT: FYI, Justices read the decisions they drafted, and dissents, to some extent, during these sessions. They don't usually read entire decisions, because they can be lengthy, including as they do first, procedural explanation of what the case is about and how it arrived at the Court. They read parts they think are important for the public initially to be aware of.

6. Excellent idea - and Leahy and Grassley agreed on something???!!!

7. Most Americans want it to die.

Because most Americans have no idea what it provides.
They only hear the Republican screaming that's so much louder than anything else.

The Democratic promotional machine really fell down on the job with this one.
As it does on most issues.

Even on this website, last week, someone had to be talked out of fearing Sarah Palin's imaginary death panels.
It's insane that idiots like Sarah Palin and her ilk control most public conversations about policy but they do.

10. Won't happen!n/t

11. Isn't going to happen, nor should it.

It is exceedingly rare for an entire opinion to be read aloud. Usually, all that happens is that the outcome (affirmed, reversed, etc.) is announced. It is entirely possible, if not certain, that the decision on the ACA will encompass multiple opinions, some concurring, some dissenting, some concurring in part and dissenting in part, some concurring in the outcome but not necessarily the same reasoning. Reading it aloud would take a ridiculous amount of time. More importantly, it would be unintelligible. For example, would the Justices be expected to read aloud all of the footnotes in the case? The footnotes can be textual as well as citations, and leaving them out would very likely distort the position taken in an opinion.

So, thanks for the silly idea, Senators Leahy and Grassley. I have little or no interest in seeing a decision read -- seeing the argument as it happens...that's a different matter, although I have some sympathy for the court's concern that soundbites of their questions etc. could be used misleadingly by partisans.